Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2019 Jun 13:2019:7037230.
doi: 10.1155/2019/7037230. eCollection 2019.

A Simulation Study Comparing Different Statistical Approaches for the Identification of Predictive Biomarkers

Affiliations
Comparative Study

A Simulation Study Comparing Different Statistical Approaches for the Identification of Predictive Biomarkers

Bernhard Haller et al. Comput Math Methods Med. .

Abstract

Identification of relevant biomarkers that are associated with a treatment effect is one requirement for adequate treatment stratification and consequently to improve health care by administering the best available treatment to an individual patient. Various statistical approaches were proposed that allow assessing the interaction between a continuous covariate and treatment. Nevertheless, categorization of a continuous covariate, e.g., by splitting the data at the observed median value, appears to be very prevalent in practice. In this article, we present a simulation study considering data as observed in a randomized clinical trial with a time-to-event outcome performed to compare properties of such approaches, namely, Cox regression with linear interaction, Multivariable Fractional Polynomials for Interaction (MFPI), Local Partial-Likelihood Bootstrap (LPLB), and the Subpopulation Treatment Effect Pattern Plot (STEPP) method, and of strategies based on categorization of continuous covariates (splitting the covariate at the median, splitting at quartiles, and using an "optimal" split by maximizing a corresponding test statistic). In different scenarios with no interactions, linear interactions or nonlinear interactions, type I error probability and the power for detection of a true covariate-treatment interaction were estimated. The Cox regression approach was more efficient than the other methods for scenarios with monotonous interactions, especially when the number of observed events was small to moderate. When patterns of the biomarker-treatment interaction effect were more complex, MFPI and LPLB performed well compared to the other approaches. Categorization of data generally led to a loss of power, but for very complex patterns, splitting the data into multiple categories might help to explore the nature of the interaction effect. Consequently, we recommend application of statistical methods developed for assessment of interactions between continuous biomarkers and treatment instead of arbitrary or data-driven categorization of continuous covariates.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Scenarios used in the simulation study for comparison of statistical methods. In scenarios 1 and 2 (a, b), data are generated under the null hypothesis of no biomarker-treatment interaction. In scenarios 3 to 6, which are illustrated in (c) to (f), the hazard ratio (illustrated on a log-scale by the red line) depends on the biomarker value, so biomarker-treatment interactions are present.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Results of scenarios simulated under the null hypothesis of no biomarker-treatment interaction. Bars represent relative frequencies of falsely rejected null hypotheses.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Results of scenarios simulated under the alternative hypothesis of a truly present biomarker-treatment interaction. Bars represent relative frequencies of correctly rejected null hypotheses.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Results of scenarios simulated under the alternative hypothesis of a truly present biomarker-treatment interaction. Bars represented relative frequencies of correctly rejected null hypotheses.

References

    1. Thunnissen E., van der Oord K., Den Bakker M. Prognostic and predictive biomarkers in lung cancer. a review. Virchows Archiv. 2014;464(3):347–358. doi: 10.1007/s00428-014-1535-4. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Robinson W. H., Mao R. Biomarkers to guide clinical therapeutics in rheumatology? Current Opinion in Rheumatology. 2016;28(2):168–175. doi: 10.1097/bor.0000000000000250. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hoefflin R., Geißler A.-L., Fritsch R., et al. Personalized clinical decision making through implementation of a molecular tumor board: a German single-center experience. JCO Precision Oncology. 2018;2(2):1–16. doi: 10.1200/po.18.00105. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ahmadzada T., Kao S., Reid G., Boyer M., Mahar A., Cooper W. An update on predictive biomarkers for treatment selection in non-small cell lung cancer. Journal of Clinical Medicine. 2018;7(6):p. 153. doi: 10.3390/jcm7060153. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Ballman K. V. Biomarker: predictive or prognostic? Journal of Clinical Oncology. 2015;33(33):3968–3971. doi: 10.1200/jco.2015.63.3651. - DOI - PubMed

Publication types

Substances

LinkOut - more resources